Does Philly Need defensive help?

The Sens are loaded with guys that may be of interest to your squad. We have three NHL goalies, very solid defensive forwards and depth defensemen.

We are short of top 6 forwards though.

Can a match be made? Can you guys afford to trade a guy like Schenn or Read?

If you watch the game today, see how well the young Sens play. Watch guys like Greening, Condra, Gryba, Wiercioch, Bishop, Lundin, OBrien, Daugavins and Regin. Perhaps the addition of 2-3 of these guys could help stabalize your defensive end.

What we lack Is a true bonafide #1 defenseman or a young blue chip prospect with the potential to be a bonafide #1 defenseman.

None of the guys you mentioned fix our defense, they simply add a new face into the mix, and that is not nearly enough incentive to trade anyone of importance from our core, not to mention the fact that the schenns are likely a package deal now that they're together, and it would take a ridiculous overpayment to pry them from the flyers. I honestly think that Couturier would be more likely to be traded than brayden schenn, and the absolute only possible way Couts is traded is if we're getting a blue chip defense prospect with an equally high ceiling. (Think someone along the lines of Reilly, Murray, Gormley etc.)

What we lack Is a true bonafide #1 defenseman or a young blue chip prospect with the potential to be a bonafide #1 defenseman.

None of the guys you mentioned fix our defense, they simply add a new face into the mix, and that is not nearly enough incentive to trade anyone of importance from our core, not to mention the fact that the schenns are likely a package deal now that they're together, and it would take a ridiculous overpayment to pry them from the flyers. I honestly think that Couturier would be more likely to be traded than brayden schenn, and the absolute only possible way Couts is traded is if we're getting a blue chip defense prospect with an equally high ceiling. (Think someone along the lines of Reilly, Murray, Gormley etc.)

I've heard a few good things about this Karlson kid. Karllson? Karlsson? Karlsoon? I know he's young and injured right now, but maybe we can swing a deal around him and one of our prospects. Strength for strength.

I think we're fine on physicality. The one thing I'll say is that we don't have a game changer back there. A guy who you can match up against a star and completely erase them or an elite offensive guy. At his best Kimmo was very very good at both ends, but he's slowing a bit. If we can't add a player with elite skills, at least in one end and passable in the others, then we don't need to move. We have plenty of serviceable mid-level talent.

When Potvin said in the first period today that "the Flyers don't need another defenseman, they need to teach their defense how to play better" (as close as I can remember), I would have been insulted had it not been glaringly true at the moment. Positionally, they are awful when defending against a rush. And they give up way too many quality opportunities when the opposition is cycling. They seem especially vulnerable of quality opportunities when an opposing forward drifts into the high slot for a one-timer.

When Potvin said in the first period today that "the Flyers don't need another defenseman, they need to teach their defense how to play better" (as close as I can remember), I would have been insulted had it not been glaringly true at the moment. Positionally, they are awful when defending against a rush. And they give up way too many quality opportunities when the opposition is cycling. They seem especially vulnerable of quality opportunities when an opposing forward drifts into the high slot for a one-timer.

This was the one game that I thought Potvin did a good job as an analyst. This is exactly what you want from an analyst, not the usual rah rah crap that he normally spews.

The comments he made about the Flyers defence was dead on. He also blamed the Sens player who was hit by Harry Z instead of going ******* on Z. It was refreshing to hear.

Sort of spinning off of that (not neccesarily agreeing or disagreeing with you), did you guys like the hit? Legality and whether it was clean aside, did you enjoy seeing it?

I have to say I didn't. I think there are times when you have an opportunity to really plaster a guy, perfectly legally and with in the rules, that you should still let up. I mean, that's way beyond what is needed to separate him from the puck (what checking is for) and a even good bit beyond just playing assertive, tough hockey. I don't know if it was dirty, but I don't know that I like it either.

You don't let up on a hit. That said he did leave his feet and catch his head. Lundin didn't help himself any though.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. He pushed into the hit with his legs too when he was already going so fast. I don't know it's difficult because I'm watching it in slow motion after the fact with the benefit of knowing how the hit ended, but he was making the decision in the moment, in real time. It's just hard seeing a guy laid out from head contact like that. It stops being fun to watch and becomes worrisome.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. He pushed into the hit with his legs too when he was already going so fast. I don't know it's difficult because I'm watching it in slow motion after the fact with the benefit of knowing how the hit ended, but he was making the decision in the moment, in real time. It's just hard seeing a guy laid out from head contact like that. It stops being fun to watch and becomes worrisome.

I don't know what you're trying to say. I said it wasn't a clean hit, but you don't let up on a hit (unless a guy has his back to the boards obviously). It's hockey. It's a fast, physical game. The moment you let up, you are the one that ends up getting hurt. Lundin left himself in a vulnerable position and payed for it. If Harry let's up and that play turns into a goal would that be better for you? If Harry stays on his feet we aren't even talking about this.